portside · News, analysis, debate: varied material of interest to people on the left Group Member [ Edit My Membership ]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/ Message 1947 of 1950 | Previous
| Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg #
From: portsideMod at n... Date: Mon Jan 21, 2002 7:31 am Subject: Re: On Blaming America First
A comment from Jack Kurzweil, Berkeley
Considering the tone of discussion these days (maybe the tone has
always been harsh), I begin my comments on Gitlin and Morgan by establishing
my
bona fides. It took me a day to overcome my initial shock of 911 and then I
wrote a letter to my representatives, with copies to my friends, urging that
the appropriate response to the attack was justice, not vengeance and I
characterized the Bush administration as jingoists rather than patriots. I
haven't at all moved from that position and, consequently, attended a lot of
anti-war meetings and demos and devoted considerable time and energy to
helping
to organizing support for Barbara Lee, my congressional representative.
>From the beginning, I believed that authentic multilateralism and
the enlistment of existing international institutions to bring Bin Laden and
his network to justice was the way to go.
I believed that the United States should have taken the Taliban
leadership up on their offer to negotiate the surrender of Bin Laden and I
still think, according to international law, that would have been the
appropriate response. But I must recognize that such a course would likely
have left the Taliban government and the Al Quaeda network and training
bases in Afghanistan intact. Although Kabul was liberated was a collection
of warlords and bandits, the authentic rejoicing by the people of Kabul at
that liberation cannot be denied. The efforts to form a new Afghan
government that may make some social progress possible has been both enabled
and undermined by American policy.
This is certainly the most complex international conflict that I
have ever experienced. Untangling it, looking for alternatives, and figuring
out appropriate strategies that will allow for the building of a mass
politics in opposition to the unilateralism of the United States is not one
that can be done standing on one foot.
And so I have some disagreements with both Morgan and Gitlin.
I think that Morgan is just plain wrong in using the "Horowitz -
like" epithet in response to Gitlin's article. A reading of the article
simply does not justify that dismissal. Gitlin is pointing out a phenomenon
on the left which, in my view, regrettably exists. My experience in the
anti-war movement in the past months has exposed me to that phenomenon. So
here is what I understand. Until 911 the United States was the undisputed
bad guy in the world. Since the fault of so many horrible things was so
clearly that of the United States government, the characterization of the
United States as villain was easy and for many on the left and in solidarity
circles it became an automatic response. The understanding that Bin Laden
represents an authentic religous fascism has come very hard to a lot of
these folks. I have been to many more than one meeting and demo where
speaker after speaker felt it necessary to state that the left should not
think that there was anything positive or liberating in Bin Laden's actions
simply because they were directed against US imperialism. I have also
heard, even from longtime activists, an emotional distance from the victims
of 911 as simply victims of US policy. One dear friend was moved to
sympathy only when reminded that many of the WTC dead were minimum wage and
undocumented workers.
In my view, Gitlin is correct in pointing out the emotional and
political distance that many on the left have from the mass of the people of
this nation. Those of on the left who are actively interested in
participating in a movement that will move us back from this existing
rightwing precipice will have to speak to the whole of the American people
in order to accomplish that. And to do that we will have to honor and
resect them, even as we challenge them to see the world in a different way.
Morgan, I believe, should reexamine the reality of this problem.
But by focusing his comments on the left and making an argument for
the complexity of America, Gitlin ends up taking the Bush Administration as
well as previous administrations off the hook.
In fact, every Administration for the past 50 years has conciously
and deliberately organized right wing and fascist forces to fight against
communism and national liberation all over the world. Todd knows this. As
well, the United States has entered into treaties and alliances only to the
extent that it controls them. Currently, with the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the US is pursuing a completely unilateralist foreign policy,
bullying others into 'alliances' when necessary. Todd knows this too.
Chalmers Johnson has coined the term 'blowback' as describing a
foreign policy venture that comes back to bite us in the ass. Well, with
Bin Laden, that blowback is an authentic fascist movement. Now ain't that a
kick. And Todd should recognize this.
Aside from the jingoist demagogy and aside from the excuse of 911 to
roll out a right wing agenda, the response of the Bush Administration to 911
was unilateralism run amuck. Regrettably, Todd did not speak to this.
I would urge Todd to consider that his critique of some part of the
left has perhaps so consumed him that he neglected the actual dynamics of
American foreign policy.
I could go on a lot longer, but I won't. I will say that in
general, but particularly now, we should avoid the shrill in our tone and
the denunciation in our argument. In arguments and debates among people on
the left, we should look for the insights and wisdom of those with whom we
find ourselves in disagreement. Language counts for a lot. Let's use it
wisely.
_________________________________________________________________
I've benefited from some feedback from those I bcc:ed my original submission to, and I've shortened it. I'm hoping you can substitute this for my earlier posting and find room for it in your Tidbits discussion. Mark Dilley's list typology of blame was one response to my private posting (presumably a critical one), you posted it to tidbits already, and another follows from Marilyn in Seattle: "Right on! We are having the same issues here, and not only regarding Sept. 11. Thanks for including me in your l oop." Here is the revised posting:
Todd Gittlin, in his Portside posting of January 15 (portside at yahoogroups.com) made an important contribution to the discussion on the left about the need to understand Anti-Americanism, both within the U.S. on the left and right, and around the world.
Gittlin has grasped the essence of a phenomena which needs to be better understood: left Anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism is, essentially, the opposite of the My Country Right or Wrong variety of patriotism. My Country wrong, says Anti-Americanism.
On the U.S. Left, a growing Anti-Americanism has arisen in recent years. Despite vehement dissent in earlier decades, left Anti-Americanism as a system of thought did not develop until after the end of the Cold War. I first recall encountering it during the Gulf War. As I see it, Anti-Americanism is akin to Anti-Intellectualism in American thought, in the sense that it is an identifiable system of thought, not merely a political stance.
Several years ago the left realized that there had developed a flourishing left-wing and right-wing set of conspiracy theorists, and concluded that this was not a truly progressive position on the left. I would argue that we should draw a similar conclusion about the growth of rigid anti-Americanism on the left. Such a system of thought is not an effective form of dissent; it is more like a mind set. It is not a product of the kind of dialectical analysis which should be the basis for progressive analysis.
Gittlin is not the only person writing from the left to identify such a trend. Sam Webb of the C.P.U.S.A. made a report in October (available on their web site) which stated:
"Anti-Americanism has too long been an ideological strain......It is not a revolutionary concept nor has it anything to do with fighting imperialism. Sometimes it may sound good, and it may even make some people feel self-satisfied. But we're not immersed in the class struggle to make ourselves feel good. Our aim is to change the world........Anti-American feelings and slogans may momentarily mobilize some people to take to the streets, but their potential to move beyond narrowly circumscribed limits and to capture the imagination of millions is problematic, to put it mildly. It is a major and unnecessary concession to the Bush administration. It weakens the fight against imperialism and international terrorism and for a sane policy of peace and justice. It turns people off. Perhaps in the 1960s, when many of us were young radicals, it was understandable, but in the present circumstances anti-American feeling and slogans are harmful.....But we will convince few people of the harmfulness of national arrogance if we betray in our words and deeds an anti-American attitude."
Activists need to consider how to effectively work to oppose both Anti-Americanism and extremism in all their forms. What Marx meant by a "ruthless criticism of all existing reality" was not a vehement and often demagogic criticism of a particular nation-state nor a highly intellectual but entirely partisan and selective effort to direct all possible intellectual ammunition to attacking one particular nation-state. Rather, such a criticism must linked to the creation of effective social movements.
Marx himself tried to take a dialectical, not a simplistic view, of each question. He was not Anti-Britain, Anti-France, or Anti-Germany, he was for the cause of the proletariat. He was certainly not Anti-American, as his Civil War dispatches show. Marx argued that at the time capitalism was a progressive historical force because of its role in gradually superseding feudalism. Whether capitalism remains a progressive historical force today or has become a retrogressive force is a question which requires active empirical investigation and political analysis. Substituting for this kind of analysis a blanket condemnations of the policies of a single nation-state is the essence of Anti-Americanism.
Anti-Americanism is based upon an ideology of certainty. Certainly, the U.S. is wrong. It was wrong then, it must be wrong now! Anti-Americanism tends to reflect a desire for venting of anger at oppression or disillusionment with our society. It ultimately tends to underestimate both the people of the United States and the potential for change within our constitutional democracy.
Understanding anti-Americanism will require careful study by students of American culture. Such an understanding needs to be linked as well to understanding anti-Americanism in an entirely different form; that held by persons of other nations. The influence of such anti-Americanism on recent immigrants to the United States must be understood in a different, contextualized as well as an historical nature. Being critical of American policies is not what is at issue; what is at issue is a blanket Anti-American set of attitudes divorced from reason and from a goal of effective social criticism. Jeffrey Goldfarb addresses what he calls "Intelligent Anti-Americanism" in a current issue of Logos worth reading at http://logosonline.home.igc.org.
I am hoping there can be further discussion of anti-Americanism. The goal is not to call those who practice Anti-Americanism Anti-American. In fact, from what I can see, Anti-Americanism is as American as apple pie! Both on the right and on the left and within the ranks of recent immigrants of many nationalities throughout U.S. history, there have been strong strands of Anti-Americanism. It would help to understand the forces behind such thinking, including the structural influence on it. However, there is a more immediate task at hand, and that is understanding and working to resolve left Anti-Americanism within our movement.
Michael A. Dover, Ann Arbor